Throughout the ages, rabbis have
provided Torah insight in matters that are not clear-cut. For a long time I
have been bothered by the question of where these teachings come from, and how
we are supposed to replicate this regarding the issues of today. Writing about
this helps immensely for personal clarification, and I hope it will also help
others.
Drush
Chazal frequently interpret pesukim
in a non-literal way. When it comes to halacha, it is often clear that the end
result was known and the question was only about the source. For example, the
gemara never entertains any real possibility that ‘an eye for an eye’ was
supposed to be taken literally. Despite this, much discussion exists over the
biblical source of the non-literal interpretation.[1]
Even when it is less clear
whether the end result was known or not, halachic interpretations of pesukim
come under careful scrutiny. If the reading is imprecise, it is usually
rejected.[2]
When it comes to non-halachic
explanations, the situation sometimes seems to be slightly different. Often
Chazal will tell us not to understand a word exactly the way that it is written
(‘Al Tikri’),[3] one famous
example being the word בניך (your sons) in
Yeshayahu 54:13 which we are told to interpret as בוניך
(your builders).[4]
This difference in style is not
limited to word alteration. In the above example, Chazal do not even understand
the altered word ‘your builders’ literally. The message that we are supposed to
take is that talmidei chachamim increase shalom in the world, the new
interpretation of the phrase ורב שלום בניך.
As already mentioned, the question that I would like to address here is what
basis Chazal had for this type of interpretation.[5]
Prophecy
To attempt to answer this
question, I believe that it is important to point out that the ideal method of
clarifying what Hashem wants from us at a particular time is simply to ask. We
are told that we have no need to resort to various forms of divining, because
G-d will send us prophets that can tell us what we need to know.[6] Until
prophecy is restored, the best alternative we have is to try to learn from
recordings of previous prophecies in the Tanach.[7]
The truth is that even for our
prophets understanding the word of G-d was not a simple task. It is clear in
the Torah that with the exception of Moshe Rabbeinu, Hashem spoke to nevi’im in
unclear visions, dreams and riddles.[8] The
Rambam writes that one prerequisite for nevuah is a powerful imagination, and
that nevuah and dreams are operated by the same mechanism.[9]
However, the near perfect character traits of the navi ensure that the meaning
is automatically ‘engraved in his heart’.[10]
Sometimes these visions were
already interpreted clearly for us by the nevi’im. But often even their interpretations
are expressed in a vague form,[11] and
in order to understand them a similar imaginative process is necessary. And as
to the best of my knowledge we do not yet have nevi’im, we cannot be certain
that we have hit the mark. Even Chazal could not be a hundred percent sure of
the veracity of their interpretations, which explains their non-binding status
in this area.[12]
Divrei Agada
Chazal themselves in many places
chose to express themselves in abstract metaphors. Sometimes their phraseology
is cryptic, at other times they give apparently unambiguous descriptions but a
literal understanding seems implausible. One thing that does appear to be clear
is that Chazal followed the style of the nevi’im. But why did they not want to
transmit their messages more directly?
The Rambam in his introduction to
the Mishna gives two reasons. Firstly, this style is a way of engaging and
arousing the interest of learners. Secondly, it is also important to hide
certain parts of the Torah from those who are not ready to appreciate them. In
the same way that someone will not accept the fact that the Sun is many times
bigger than the Earth without the appropriate background in astronomy and
geometry.[13]
We are urged to make an effort to
understand these parts of the Torah, as through them one can comprehend the
‘absolute good’ that is unsurpassable.[14]
Theological matters that scientists hid, and philosophers yearned for, can be
revealed. One must direct his heart to Hashem, and daven that He give us wisdom
and help to reveal the foundations hidden in the Scriptures.[15]
Preaching
With the above in mind, we can
start to understand what happens (or at least what should happen) when rabbis
draw on Tanach and midrashim in order to impart a message that in their eyes is
crucial for the time. Usually this message is far from clear from the sources
quoted, and this is often a cause of consternation.
If people understand that these
ideas are subjective interpretations of the rabbi in question (or that of an
earlier rabbi quoted), and are not meant as something absolutely authoritative,
they should become more palatable. And if the rabbi has the respect of those he
is talking to, they will likely consider the message seriously as the advice of
someone worth listening to.
Of course the primary
responsibility for this rests with the rabbi himself. If he does not clearly
differentiate between inarguable halacha[16] and
more subjective ethics, the likelihood is that neither will be accepted.
I believe there are two other points that we
can learn from the nevi’im when trying to be the best substitute for them.
Firstly, even a superficial reading of Tanach indicates that most of the
prophecies fell on deaf ears. It does not take a huge amount of humility to
realise that even our best efforts to transmit what we believe to be the truth
may be unsuccessful.
Secondly, although unlike the
nevi’im we can never be absolutely sure that our understanding of the Torah is
the truth, we must give it our best honest efforts. One almost certain path to
failure is to approach an issue with a predetermined goal of finding a source
for something we like the sound of.
Something for Purim
It feels inappropriate to end
this post without an example of an attempt to follow my own guidelines.
Although some of the ideas I will try to present are not original, there is
definitely a personal touch. And there also are some examples of the
interpretations of Chazal.
Throughout Megilas Esther and the
midrashim on it, there is a clear background theme. The Jews are in exile, and
they must not lose track of three interrelated things. They are subservient to
G-d alone, it is crucial to get out of exile, and they must unite to achieve
this purpose leaving individual needs aside. Otherwise, there is no shortage of
enemies determined to divert us from these aims, and they will prevail chas
v’shalom.
The prelude is that the rebuilding
of the Beis Hamikdash, sanctioned by Coresh, is halted by Achashverosh.[17] The
Jews then begin to lose sight of the above goals, bowing to an image (and later
to Haman) and partaking of a feast held to celebrate the Beis Hamikdash not
being rebuilt.[18] Mordechai becomes
the sole protester, at first making him extremely unpopular.[19]
The turning point is when the
edict is issued to wipe out the entire Jewish People, based on the probably
accurate claim that they are ‘scattered and dispersed’.[20]
Nothing is more effective at waking us up to our purpose in life.[21]
Esther is reminded by Mordechai that her special status will not save her if
she does not do all she can for her people. She responds by saying that all the
Jews must be united, making amends for the claim of Haman.[22]
Chazal tell us that when
Achashverosh tells Esther that he will grant anything up to half of his
kingdom, he means that the one thing he will not allow is the rebuilding of the
Beis Hamikdash, which would divide his kingdom.[23] He
understands that if G-d is once again glorified on Earth, people will realise
that he (Achashverosh) is not the real king. Eventually he is forced to concede
defeat.[24]
Today we also live in an age when
despite a clear start to a process of redemption, our goals have become
clouded. In order to complete the job we must refocus, this time without being
forced to by those out to destroy us.
Purim Sameach!
[1] Bava
Kama 83b-84a. Even when R’ Eliezer states that it is in fact literal, the
gemara contends that all he means is that the damager must pay the value of his
own limb, not that of the wounded. See the Rambam’s introduction to the Mishna for
elaboration.
[2] See for
example Bava Basra 111b. Although the methodology is often hard to understand,
the presence of a consistent system is clear.
[3] To
the best of my knowledge this method does not exist with regards to halacha,
although we do find explanations based on differences between the way a word is
written and the way it is read (יש אם למקרא/יש אם
למסורת).
[4] Berachos
64a. For a literal explanation of the pasuk, see Metzudas David.
[5] It is
difficult to say that all such explanations were passed down from Matan Torah,
as they are presented as statements of individual amora’im. It is also clear
that many of the commentators on Tanach felt free to offer novel
interpretations.
[6] Devarim
18:14-5
[7] See
Megila 14a that the reason that prophecies were recorded is because of their
need for following generations.
[8] Bamidbar
12:6-8
[9] Moreh
Nevuchim 2:36. He proves this from the statement of Chazal that a dream is a
sixtieth of nevuah (Berachos 57b), implying that the difference is only
quantitative.
[10] Hilchos
Yesodei Hatorah 7:3
[11] Ibid.
[13] To support
this idea the Rambam quotes the pasuk in Mishlei (23:9) באזני כסיל אל תדבר כי יבוז לשכל מליך (Don’t speak in the ears of a fool, as
he will scoff at the intelligence of your words).
[14] See
also Sifri Eikev (Piska 49) where Chazal say that learning Agada is the way to
recognise Hashem and cling to his ways.
[15] As David
Hamelech did in Tehilim 119:18- גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות
מתורתיך (Open
my eyes so that I will see wonders from Your Torah).
[16]
Although halacha is also often not clear-cut, most of the halachos that a rav
teaches are indisputed (perhaps against the common conception). He also usually
will have the sense to prioritise the areas of halacha that fall under wide
consensus. However when it comes to philosophy and non-halachic issues, it is
rare to find complete agreement.
[17] Ezra 4
[18] Megila 12a
[19] Esther
3:1-2, Megila 12b-13a. Although it seems from Megila 12a that even Mordechai
was guilty of partaking from the feast.
[20] Esther 3:8
[21] See Megila
14a
[22] Esther
4:13-6
[23] Megila 15b
[24] See Esther
9:12, where Achashverosh does not mention the limitation of ‘up to half of the
kingdom.’ I heard this point from Uri bin-Nun, formerly director general of the
Electric Company.
No comments:
Post a Comment